Mathematical Methods for Making Investment Decisions



Investment to the development of economic processes and systems always entails risks. Not adequately reasoned investment decision can cause adverse economic consequences for the investor. Making investment decisions becomes more complicated because of high degree of uncertainty of economic consequences of investments. Mathematical methods and models proposed in the chapter represent an integrated methodology of making investment decisions that enables to reduce risks, more objectively estimate probability of investment consequences and equip the investor with a practical instrument of scientifically-based forecasting. A review of a variety of methodological approaches to risk studying shows that researchers mainly focus their attention on the entrepreneurial risk, i.e. as the object of analysis they consider individual enterprises, and the subjects of their investigations are statistical variations in stochastic probability distributions of all possible losses and damages. At the same time, insufficient attention is given to the investigation of principles of functioning and forms of manifestation of nonstatistical risks, their influence on the entrepreneurial activity and interaction with statistical risks. This research suggests a methodological base for creation of an integral expert system supporting coordinated investment decisions with account for assessment and control of project risks.


Utility Function Membership Function Cash Flow Fuzzy Number Investment Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Mutanov, G., Kulikov, V.P., Kulikova, V.P.: Information Support of Investment Decision in Risk Conditions. Astana (2005), p. 456 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring efficiency of decision-making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2(6), 429–444 (1978) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards, W.: The theory of decision making. Psychol. Bull. 51(4), 380–417 (1954) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, Y., Zhao, L., Li, R.: Novel model on assessment of construction project investment environment. Pak. J. Stat. 29(6), 989–998 (2013) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Das, I., Bhattacharya, K., Canizares, C., Muneer, W.: Sensitivity-indices-based risk assessment of large-scale solar PV investment projects. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4(2), 370–378 (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saati, T.: Decision Making. Method of Hierarchy Analysis. Radio i Svyaz (1993) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blome, C., Schoenherr, T.: Supply chain risk management in financial crises—a multiple case-study approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 134(1), 43–57 (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kovalev, V.V.: Financial Analysis (1997), p. 512 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mak, B., Schmitt, B.H., Lyytinen, K.: User participation in knowledge update of expert systems. Inf. Manag. 32(2), 55–63 (1997) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korkhin, A.S.: Regression parameter-estimation as a multicriterion problem. Autom. Remote Control 53(9), 1403–1409 (1992) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin, W.T., Shao, B.B.M.: The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach. Inf. Manag. 37(6), 283–295 (2000) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiesemann, W., Kuhn, D., Rustem, B.: Maximizing the net present value of a project under uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202(2), 356–367 (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erfani, T., Utyuzhnikov, S.V.: Directed search domain: a method for even generation of the Pareto frontier in multiobjective optimization. Eng. Optim. 43(5), 467–484 (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raju, K.S., Pillai, C.R.S.: Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 112(3), 479–488 (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lukasevich, I.Ya.: Analysis of Financial Operations. Finansy (1998) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moiseev, N.N.: Mathematical Problems of System Analysis. Nauka, Moscow (1981), p. 488 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zadeh, L.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Omelchenko, I.N., Kolobov, A.A., Ermakov, A.Yu., Kireev, A.V.: Industrial Logistics. MSTU (1997), p. 204 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, Z., Wen, G., Han, Y.: Decision making based on intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and its algorithm. J. Comput. Anal. Appl. 17(4), 620–631 (2014) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liang, M.T., Chen, S.Y., Lee, C.W., Yeh, C.J.: Application of fuzzy optimum system hierarchy analysis selection method to determining repair order for existing reinforced concrete bridges. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 28(2), 189–204 (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mamdani, E.H., Assilian, S.: Experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 7(1), 1–13 (1975) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matbouli, Y.T., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Karray, F.: A fuzzy logic approach to assess, manage, and communicate carcinogenic risk. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 20(6), 1687–1707 (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guo, P., Li, Y.: Approaches to multistage one-shot decision making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 236(2), 612–623 (2014) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hu, Y.: Energy conservation assessment of fixed-asset investment projects: an attempt to improve energy efficiency in China. Energy Policy 43, 327–334 (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holcombe, R.: Economic Models and Methodology. Greenwood Press, New York (1989) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orrell, D.: Apollo’s Arrow: The Science of Predication and the Future of Everything, Harper Collins Canada, Toronto (2007) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Titov, V.I.: Enterprise Economics: Textbook. EKSMO (2008), p. 416 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Denina, I.G., Saltykov, B.G.: Mechanisms Stimulating Commercialization of Research and Developments. IEPP (2004), p. 604 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ghadiali, A.M., Ray, P.S., Lindly, J.K., Batson, R.G.: An expert system for risk assessment of automobile crashes. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 6, 491–507 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sedbrook, T.A.: A collaborative fuzzy expert system for the web. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 29(3), 19–30 (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brinckmann, J., Grichnik, D., Kapsa, D.: Should entrepreneurs plan or just storm the castle? A meta-analysis on contextual factors impacting the business planning-performance relationship in small firms. J. Bus. Venturing 25(1), 24–40 (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Al-Farabi Kazakh National UniversityAlmatyKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations